It had the makings to be great, it wasn't. Soem scenes are genius, others are just so unnecessary. It was ok, but I still think it'll get a nomination for best pic.

2.5/5

Quoted from Aaron It had the makings to be great, it wasn't. Soem scenes are genius, others are just so unnecessary. It was ok, but I still think it'll get a nomination for best pic. 2.5/5

What are your opinions on "Heat" and "Collateral"?  

Honestly, I haven't seen either, which I have to, I know I'm missing out. Probably shouldn't comment on Micheal Mann's work but this being one of his works, I have to say it was boring for the most part, just kind of ehh.

  Have you seen it?

Quoted from Aaron Honestly, I haven't seen either, which I have to, I know I'm missing out. Probably shouldn't comment on Micheal Mann's work but this being one of his works, I have to say it was boring for the most part, just kind of ehh.   Have you seen it?

I haven't seen "Public Enemies" yet, but I'm planning on it at some point.  Even though I'm interested, it's kind of low on my list right now (being pushed down by "Moon" and other films).

You should really check out his other works.  "Heat", "The Insider", "Collateral", "Last of the Mohicans"...the list goes on and on.  One could criticize his works for being overly long (and lord knows I have), but I still enjoy his films.  

Quoted from dresseme You should really check out his other works.  "Heat", "The Insider", "Collateral", "Last of the Mohicans"...the list goes on and on.  One could criticize his works for being overly long (and lord knows I have), but I still enjoy his films.

Don't forget Thief.  Goes up there with one of the most badass endings there is.

btw, Public Enemies was siiiiiiiiiiick.  loved it. lol

this movie rocked in every way, Depp, Bale and Crudup were awesome, and I love how Mann shoots bloody action, lots of gushing blood.  I  also love the use of modern music in a historic pic, plus Mann shoots the coolest close ups.  One of my fav films so far this year, a fun bloody action film.

It's cool you guys liked it. Now, despite my distaste of it, do you guys see a Best Pic Nomination coming it's way?

The movie was pretty good. I was expecting some sort of masterpiece. I didn't get it, but I did get a pretty good film. Johnny Depp, as always, rocked his part as Dillenger, while Bale also did a very good job at his part. The shoot-outs were awesome, but the film lacked the whole "robin hood" aspect that the real Dillenger carried with him. All in all, I'd give the film 3 out of 4.

looks like I'm the only one who didn't like it

Quoted from dresseme What are your opinions on "Heat" and "Collateral"?

Sorry to butt in guys but 'Heat' is one of my alltime faves! It's Pacino and DeNiro at their peak, I feel. And the supporting cast is great too. The only thing that annoys me is the ending - it drags on for too long and is sort of anti climactic.

after seeing this in '96 I was doing DeNiro impresssions in public for days - drunk of course. I also love The Last of the Mohicans. Cheers

My wife loves Johnny Depp with a passion so I showed her the trailer for Public Enemies. He's the second most sexiest man alive according to her. Well, that's what she tells me with a straight face...
Anyway, while she was swooning, i mentioned that his character, John Dillinger, in real life supposedly had a 13 inch schlong!
My wife's eyes never left the screen as she said, 'That's why they cast Johnny, I guess...

Quoted from stevie John Dillinger, in real life supposedly had a 13 inch schlong! My wife's eyes never left the screen as she said, 'That's why they cast Johnny, I guess...

Ha ha! Supposedly the photo from where they got that rumor was when he was killed. But, it turned out to be his arm in a stage of rigor mortis. But, still, he could of had a big one. I don't really know, I wasn't there.

his arm in a stage of rigor mortis. hahahahah

This is a film review thread... so can we avoid taking about the dude's cock? Keep things relevant.

Saw Public Enemies yesterday...boy was I unimpressed!

The more I think about it, the more I border on saying that I actually disliked the film.  At best, it was barely OK.

It was so dull...so slow...and way too long for its own good.  It's funny, cause you'd think there would be so many amazingly interesting stories involving Dillinger and his boys, but this movie was almost plotless. Really, all there was, was Bale chasing Depp, and since we already knew the outcome, nothing here was very moving for me at all.

When the credits rolled, I was literally shocked by who was in the film, because for the most part, I only recognized Depp, Bale, Lele Sobieski, and of course Don "The Predator" Frye.  I had no clue all these other recognizable talents were here and can't for the life of me tell you which characters they played.  That says alot about the characterization here...it was almost non existent.  It didn't help that everyone looked identical to each other, either.

I am very, very usrprised that people are saying they liked or loved it.  What was there to love?  Seriously?  I don't think there was a single memorable scene.  I don't think the shootouts were even well done.  The sound was great, but in terms of reality...no go.  The shootout in the woods in that WI B&B, or whatever it was, could have been so cool, but it wasn't.  So many bullets everyhwere, yet none of the wooden window frames took any shots...even when the guys inside are just spraying bullets everywhere from a few inches away.

Surprised they went with an R rating, cause it had to be one of the lamest R's of all times.  Very foolish, actually, as tons of younger viewers (and women) would have appreciated a PG13, and by the looks of the boxoffice, they're kicking themselves in the ass now.  This was a $100 Million budgeted film. They'lll get it back, but it sure isn't going to be a boxoffice success.  With Depp, Bale, and Mann, you'd think Summer blockbuster for sure.  They'll be lucky to hit $100 Million here in NA, and I'm not sure what it will do overseas...but we'll find out.

OK, what about Depp and Bale's performances?  Depp was OK, but didn't really have much to work with, I don't think. Bale's role could have been played by anyone.  I didn't see anything at all from his performance, and I couldn't stand his accent he used.

Huge disapointment!  I'll give it a 4/10, and that's only based on Don Frye's amazing work here...amazing in that he didn't appear to be drunk while onscreen.

They fooled us, I thought it would have a good plot but wow like you said plotless as crap. The funny thing is, the trailer never looked so great to me so I wondered what all the fuss was about.

Btw, Bale's character, to me, was basically a sorry excuse.

You're right Aaron.  I also didn't have any positive feelings about teh trailers either.  My girlfriend wanted to see it, so we did.

Bale's character was just so weak.  Did we learn anything about him at all during the 2 1/2 hours?  I sure didn't.

Saw this a few hours ago...I liked it. Depp was great, but I was actually more impressed by Marion Cotillard. I actually disagree about prior knowledge of the ending being a bad thing - gave everything that went before a real sense of doom-laden inevitability. This is a man who knows that eventually, his luck will run out. But he enjoys walking the path too much to even consider stepping off. And by the time he's realised it's time to quit, it's too late.

It's certainly not the action film some would have been expecting. But boring? Not in a million years. Brilliant evocation of the period (set design, props, costumes), but shot in a way that made it feel fresh and modern. I can foresee a sackful of Oscar nominations coming its way - perhaps Best Actor for Depp, Best Supporting Actress for Cotillard, an outside chance of Best Picture and Best Director (and MAYBE Best Original Screenplay), and then a few technical ones: Cinematography, Art Direction, Costume Design, Sound Editing...

Those are nominations, not wins. But yeah, I liked it. Not Mann's best, but a fine piece of work,

Johnny, I'm very surprised at your review here.  What exactly did you find so engaginjg here for 2 1/2 hours of run time.  Are there some scenes that stood out for you and you'll remember fondly over the yers?  What was it about Depp's role that was so impressive? Did he have any memorable lines?

Props. set design, and wardrobe were well done.  Best Direcor nom?  Why?  Best screenplay?  C'mon...why?  It was taken from a book anyway.  Best actor in Depp?  He really didn't hjave all that much screen time and what did we really get to know about the man, John Dillenger?

I see you didn't mention Bale's performance.  Not surprising, as he was a complete throwaway character.

Hey Jeff...I expected a reply to my review! Let's do this. Oh, but let me start by pointing out how subjective this all is - I don't consider anything I say to be 'true', just honest, considered opinion. I'll take your questions one at a time.

1) Was it really two and a half hours? To me, it didn't feel anywhere near that long. But then I didn't find Watchmen too long, so maybe I just lose track of time in the cinema! Oh, apart from King Kong - now that felt looooooong...well, I'll tell you what I found engaging in my other answers.

2) Stand-out scenes...well, the end was handled very well, in my opinion. The scene inside the Biograph, where Dillinger watches the Gable film and connects to everything he says - that worked for me. The very end, the final "bye bye Blackbird" line; cheesy to some, moving to me. Some of the shootouts were memorably done, particularly the Little Bohemia sequence.

3) I very much like Johnny Depp as an actor. I haven't seen him give a bad performance (although I felt the complete over-use of him in Pirates 3, especially since Cap'n Jack had begun to feel stale by that point, didn't show him in a particularly good light), and there are some films in which manages to make the most of the mediocrity he is working with (Secret Window for example; Depp is definitely the best thing about that film). I actually think this was a very strong performance. As ludicrous as it sounds, there were times when I actually forgot I was watching someone as famous as Johnny Depp.

In some ways, this was a similar performance to his turn as Sweeney Todd - again, a great performance in my eyes. Depp manages to convey more emotion in the slightest facial gesture than some actors manage in all their lines of dialogue put together. Again, I refer to the Biograph scene; Dillinger's reaction to Gable's dialogue, his identification with this gangster character onscreen (Dillinger refers at points in the film to the public perception of him, and seems to enjoy being the hero) came across very strongly to me, even though he never spoke. It made me wonder if perhaps Dillinger was just a man playing at being a gangster, who suddenly, as the film went on, came to realise that it wasn't so much of a game.

Now no doubt I'm reading too much into everything, but yes, I enjoyed Depp's performance. He was, to a certain extent, a mystery, a puzzle to which we were never given the answer; but when you're portraying such a famous, showboating character, isn't that appropriate?

4) Memorable lines...I actually agree with you there. I retract my opinion about the Best Screenplay nomination. The script was servicable, but not exceptional. However, I don't think the lack of memorable lines lessens the effect of Depp's performance. Like in Sweeney Todd, it's a performance of looks and unspoken emotions, not soundbites and constant communication through vocalising what he feels.

5) Yes, to me this was well-directed. Perhaps not a Best Director nomination - notice that I said that it wasn't as certain as a Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress nomination, both of which I expect (although I'll no doubt be wrong!). As you yourself said, it was technically very good. As I've already said, I liked how the hi-def and choice of camera angles, angled close-ups etc. gave it a dynamism and immediacy that period films often lack. It would have been easy to stay wide, to show off the level of detail on the sets and costumes...but Mann didn't. He stayed close, in their faces, and I liked that. I wouldn't be surprised if Mann got a nomination, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't get one, either.

6) Yes, I didn't mention Bale. He was fine. Not a great role, but he did fine. I notice you didn't mention Marion Cotillard. Do you agree that she was pretty fantastic?

Look forward to discussing more! Just remember, neither of us are likely to change our minds to any great degree...

Johnny, no neither of us needs to change our minds...that's not the point. I was merely asking some questions, because I just don't really get it.

I think you know I'm a huge lover of movies...whether or not they're good or great, I just love movies.  I also enjoy Johnny Depp...I'm not what one would call a huge fan or anything, but I defintely think he's a great actor.  In the first 2 Pirate movies, I think he was incredible.  I also did not like the 3rd one, nor did I really like his performance, but that had alot to do with the script, and as you said, it was just getting a bit old and recycled.

I'm losing my way here...OK...back on track.  With all the immense talent on display here, $100 Million budget, an extremely popular true life icon, etc., I just don't see much of anything here that qualifies as a great, or even good movie.

I'm the kind of guy that likes to know about the inside scoop in Hollywood...I know who actors are, and I'm familiar with their body of work.  As I said earlier, when the credits rolled here, I was shocked to see all the names of actors that I know very well, but didn't remember even seeing them in the film, let alone who they played, what they did, etc.  I still don't understand how this could be, other than everyone looked alike and no one really did much of anything out of the ordinary.  And I thought Bale was a complete waste here, and his voice was so irritating...why did he sign on for this weak role?

For instance, take Casino, Scarface, and Good Fellas (3 movies that are somewhat similar in theme to Public Enemies).  Think about the characters, actors, scenes, and memerable lines.  Compare them quickly to Public Enemies. What do you get?  Quite a difference, as far as I can see.  Look at Pacino's performance, DeNiro's perfromance, Liotta's performance...and then Depp's performance.  Is there much of a difference?  I'd say there's a huge difference.  I don't think Depp did anything wrong here, he just didn't have anything to work with, and that's pretty much my feelings on the entire film....not much to work with, very little going on, very little characterization, very little action, very little to really care about.

Marion Cotillard was good for sure...probably easily the best in the movie.  But she was gone for much of the movie. She wasn't really invovled with much action, other than the interogation scene, which was good, but a bit off, as we didn't really know whay that fat dude was acting like he was...it took away from the scene for me.

I don't like criticizing movies...I really don't but with this one, I can't help myself.  It was a monstrous letdown, and based on its Box Office returns, most seem to agree, as it's under performing hugely, but will still turn a profit when overseas returns come in (I think).

Don't worry Jeff, I'm not accusing you of trying to convert me! I'm just saying that it's possible that you didn't get anything from it, and I did. Does that mean there's something there to get? Not necessarily. Does it mean there's nothing? Again, not really. A film 'text' is as much formed by its audience as its makers. So you and I will have different ideas of what Public Enemies is. It will, essentially be two different films.

Anyway, pretenious film studies schtick aside...Bale probably signed up because he saw the name Michael Mann. Maybe Johnny Depp was onboard by that point, too. I doubt there are many actors who'd pass up the opportunity to work with those two.  I'd hardly say his career has been HURT by this. Yes, he wasn't particularly memorable, but I thought he acquited himself fine. The REAL question about Mr. Bale is what possessed him to do Terminator Salvation?

I think Depp's performance is a good one. I don't quite understand what you're trying to say by comparing him to Pacino's Tony Montana, for instance. Sure, Depp didn't put in a stereotypical 'gangster' performance, but would you expect him to? This, remember, is the man who turned up to the Pirates readings and did a Keith Richards impression, who played Willy Wonka as a distinctly creepy Michael Jackson/Peter Pan hybrid.

Let me make it clear: I don't think this is Scarface. I don't think it's Heat, or The Godfather, or anything like that. Did I enjoy it? Yes. Do I think it's a good film? Yes. In a summer largely crammed with soulless, purely money-driven fare like Terminator Salvation and Transformers 2, it's refreshing to see a film made with something other than profit margins in mind. Terminator Salvation has taken over $350 million worldwide, Transformers 2 double that; are either of those better films than Public Enemies? Is box office return really a reliable indicator of quality? Or of the success of a marketing campaign?

This was a subtle, sympathetic portrait of a cultural icon, a great evocation of a period, a stylistically interesting and well-engineered piece of work that wasn't made for the tie-in pizzas or action figures. And in this age of franchises, rampant CGI and increasing disregard for any audience other than the 16-25 males, I think that should be appreciated. I enjoyed it, I think it slots nicely into Mann's catalogue, and yes, at the end of the year I do think it'll have some Oscar nominations to show for it.

Clearly we're going to disagree over this. What we don't disagree with, I hope, is that it's better to have a hundred Public Enemies than one Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

Well put.

Agree on that abortion, Terminator Slavation!  That was really bad.

This wasn't a bad film at all.  It was well done, well shot, well researched, and you're right...Mann will be happy with this, and so will his die hard fans.

I think the biggest problem is that the movie that Mann produced, isn't the movie that teh trailers represented, or what many fans expected.  I feel the same way about Gran Torino...I felt let down, cause I left thinking that what I watched wasn't anything like what I was expecting to watch...or wanted to watch.

Well done.  OK, what movie's next...

Quoted from Dreamscale I think the biggest problem is that the movie that Mann produced, isn't the movie that teh trailers represented, or what many fans expected.

That's a good point, and I think explains why this movie won't break any financial records. Not that it was ever going to, anyway. How exactly would you classify this film? It's part thriller, part drama, part gangster movie, part action film, part biopic. Wikipedia describes it as a 'crime film', but that's a bit vague isn't it? It's like saying Terminator Salvation and Transformers are 'robot films'. Or that Angels and Demons is a 'church movie'.

Compare that to The Hangover, which is becoming a ludicrous financial success. I've seen that too, and I think I can say with confidence that I'll remember Public Enemies a lot more clearly than I'll remember The Hangover. But what did The Hangover do? It nailed its audience. It gave people a good trailer, and a film that was essentially that trailer stretched out to 90 minutes. No confusion, no surprises. And people liked it for that. Who, exactly, is the target audience for Public Enemies? Die-hard Michael Mann fans certainly, although I wouldn't call myself a die-hard. Johnny Depp fans perhaps(which is why the poster is just a shot of him). but I'd say that despite his recent success he still doesn't have the box office pull of a Tom Cruise or Will Smith. People looking for big, effects-laden action? Well if they know someone who's gone, that person will tell them not to bother; not a greenscreen in sight. It's a film with no nudity, next to no swearing (hardly anyone even raises their voice), no kick-ass stunts, no explosions...not exactly summer blockbuster fare. It's a funny time of year to release it, actually. Perhaps an autumn release date would have been more appropriate. So who do you sell it to? Males? Not enough sex. Women? Too much violence, but not enough violence for the males. Older audiences? Probably too loud. Younger audiences? Too slow. You're left with people who make an effort to go and see it, so naturally the numbers will be smaller.

Whereas The Hangover? Well I saw it for free, but I'd guess the paying audience for that would be predominately 16-35 year old males, largely in single-sex groups. It has sex, nudity, gross-out humour, quotable lines, stuff happens all the time, it's bright and shiny and colourful...far more likely to attract people looking to just go and see a film, who expect a 90 minute version of the trailer and get what they expect. I doubt people would just 'go and see' Public Enemies.

The box office returns would tell you that The Hangover is the better film. But is it? Or is this that rarest of things, a man using his influence to get a film made for something other than financial reasons?

Quoted from Dreamscale Johnny, I'm very surprised at your review here.  What exactly did you find so engaginjg here for 2 1/2 hours of run time.  Are there some scenes that stood out for you and you'll remember fondly over the yers?

Dietrich being dragged along with the car and Dillinger not letting go even tho he knows his pal is already dead.

The bank shoot outs.

Baby Face Nelson's Cagney impersonation / Nelson being gunned down.

Winstead's scene with the shotgun in the woods

Dillinger in the theater connecting with Clark Gable.

The whole tension building on the way to Dillinger being killed.

Winstead delivering Dillinger's message to Billie.

Just some things off the top of my head, and I only saw it once.

Sure, for Goodfellas and Casino I could name every little thing that would stick with me for years to come, but those movies are just excellent on every level. haha

I'm late to this discussion, but I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed this film.  It was more of a suspense-drama than a real gangster-action film. I felt that it was more character driven.  I also thought they did a great job with the tension of the film.

No, it wasn't anything that I expected it to be, but I was drawn into the film and didn't care at all.

I haven't read the script but I can say that they did a good job of creating tension and creating the building blocks (situations) that led to Dillinger's downfall.  It was what many screenwriting books recommend, to build the tension and I thought the writer did a good job of that.

Just my opinion. I know I'm well into the minority here.

Quoted from BlazingStar I know I'm well into the minority here.

Nothing wrong with that. We all have different tastes. It had great scenes but the problem was it wasn't a well balanced film IMO, which ultimately led to my distaste of it.